MovieChat Forums > Ricochet (1991) Discussion > Deleted rape scene...

Deleted rape scene...

posted 18 years ago by osimonide
10 replies | jump to latest

When the movie was released director Russel Mulcahy talked about some stuff he deleted from the film. According to him one deleted scene was of Denzel's character getting raped by psycho Lithgow ! Mulcahy said the test audience (during a test screening) became really angry when they saw the scene...

I'm surprised these deleted scenes have never resurfaced, at least not to my knowledge... The movie has achieved some sort of (very) minor cult status and every B movie gets a special edition DVD these days !

BTW the Mulcahy comments came from an interview he gave to french film magazine "Impact", if I remember correctly...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DreTam2000 18 years ago

I'd much rather see that blonde prostitute chick rape Denzel.

Amen to that..

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

[–] mekoppa 14 years ago

Well the prostitute that did rape him gave him VD.

[–] jackson-219 16 years ago

I'm actually surprised that Denzel would actually do a scene like that. Ricochet was always a pretty sleezy movie anyway but still really enjoyable. That scene would have fit the movie perfectly in terms of it's tone and violence. Lithgow's character is so demented I could see his character doing something like that. The only thing that I really objected to in the finished film was the short scene of child pornography in the suitcase of the city official. I felt that was in bad taste and unnecessary. The violence is alittle too cruel but HEY! It's an action film.

[–] RynoII 16 years ago

I think the rape scene should have been edited cause it would be too gratuitous and exploitive. But they should have still implied that he raped him, to show how wack his character really is.

[–] SPaS 15 years ago

Back when the director's godawful Mummy - movie was released, a Finnish movie magazine interviewed the guy at the premiere.

Then he told that in test screening there was a scene where Lithgow physically abuses Denzel up to the point where Denzel throws up on himself.
After that, Lithgow gets a sponge to clean him up.

THAT was a scene that got cut the next day. So it's not a rape, but humiliation.

Russell also said that the controversy wasn't so much over the fact that they were both men, but the fact that it was a white guy humiliating a black guy...

[–] Villebaldur 13 years ago

If it was the humiliation scene that was cut, it would explain why Denzel has some sort of yellow womit on his chin and shirt, when he is found in a bag among the homeless people. So I guess that's it.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 11 years ago

On one hand, I don't like to see black characters getting so comprehensively destroyed by white characters onscreen, not least because there will always be some racist POS who will get off on that. Then again, Washington was the good guy and John Lithgow was playing a real scumbag drug dealer, and the sad reality is that heroes often are put through the nastiest circumstances which in turn makes their ultimate triumph against adversity all the more impressive and inspiring.

You can't have a convincing hero/heroine who has been mollycoddled and treated like a prince/princess all their lives. For the hero/heroine's journey and ultimate victory to be particularly compelling their lowest point should be as low as possible. That's what makes them their survivors.

[–] lgforce 13 years ago

I think you're making this up or someone lied to you.
I don't think Denzel Washington would have agreed to do a scene like that.

So you're going to have to provide a link of some sort.

[–] jackrabbit83 10 years ago

Lithgow still pay hooker to have sex with the Denzel's character in the actual movie. I think that count as rape because it's force.